The House of Delegates of the American Bar Association, which may be
referred to as the AICPA of the legal profession, voted 316 to 105 in
favor of a resolution against multidisciplinary practices (MDPs).

Surprisingly, it also quotes Jeffrey Peck, managing director of
Arthur Andersen’s office of government affairs in Washington, D.C.,
who extensively berates the ABA for its decision opposing MDPs. The
article might also have reported that the largest law firm in England
is Arthur Andersen.

To add to the non-objectivity of the report is a quote from Richard
Miller, secretary and general counsel of the AICPA: “I find it
unfortunate that the ABA failed to demonstrate any leadership on the
MDP issue.” Would the AICPA look favorably on the ABA’s or any other
national organization’s criticism of a resolution by the Institute’s
governing body?

I believe one can only conclude that the article, written by a
JofA editor, was intended to represent a viewpoint rather
than a news item. Although I have an open mind on the MDP issue, I
believe the national organization of lawyers has more valid
jurisdiction on matters affecting attorneys than does a national
association of CPAs.

The results of the 2016 presidential election are likely to have a big impact on federal tax policy in the coming years. Eddie Adkins, CPA, a partner in the Washington National Tax Office at Grant Thornton, discusses what parts of the ACA might survive the repeal of most of the law.